04 April 2011 11:19 AM

General Debate

On the question of the homicide rate in this country, I have mentioned before that many crimes which would once unhesitatingly been classified as murder are now listed, and prosecuted, as 'manslaughter', largely to save time and resources for the CPS and the courts. Comparisons with the past are also made difficult by the huge improvements in trauma surgery since the 1960s, which enable doctors to save many people who would undoubtedly have died of their wounds and injuries 45 years ago. The heedless, cruel violence which leads to such injuries ( and which in my view is at least partly a consequence of the abandonment of deterrent hanging) has increased far more than the number of death resulting from it. This increase was until recently reflected in the figures for attempted murder and of 'wounding to endanger life' (this quadrupled from 155 per year to 634 between 1976 and 1996) but I strongly suspect that the CPS are no longer bothering to charge at this level, in their constant effort to ease pressure on the prisons.

The death penalty plainly does not restrain all murder. But there is a strong case to suggest that it deters murders done for calculated reasons (the removal of a witness to another crime, rape or robbery) . And there is evidence from the two suspensions of the death penalty, in 1948 and 1957, that the use of firearms by criminals increased during this suspensions, and began its long, unremitting increase to the levels of today after final abolition.

All this can be found in the relevant chapter 'Cruel and Unusual' of my 2002 book 'A Brief History of Crime', still available through libraries to the determined.

A contributor states that: ' To have had any chance of preventing the shooting of this little girl would mean having armed police on every street corner.'

I don't see how this follows from what I said, and can only follow from a prejudiced misreading or part-reading of what i said. My prescription is threefold. A restoration of the death penalty for murder, combined with a resolute justice system backed by austere prisons controlled by the authorities. And to rally the law-abiding and discourage the lawless, a constant presence of police constables patrolling the streets on foot.

These things are all possible (they existed in living memory) and not specially expensive. I believe they would have widespread support if proposed, and if introduced. What annoys me is that such ideas are absolutely excluded from mainstream political debate, and subjected to silly abuse when aired. I've yet to encounter a reasoned objection to them, only yells of execration.This of course encourages me to persist.

As for defence of the police from within the service, persons who say they have never heard police officers refer to the public as 'civilians' strain my credulity. I have heard it, and read it, countless times. Others seem to think that arrests and convictions are a measure of police success. This is to compound the misunderstanding. An arrest is a failure. A conviction is a bigger failure. Why? Because the crimes that led to them should never have taken place. The purpose of the police, above all things, is to *prevent* crime in the first place. If you are injured, burgled, or bereaved by crime, how much consolation can the prosecution of the culprit provide for you?

And much of the crime they prevent will be officially classified as *petty", the low-level disorder and menace hard to record in statistics, but exactly the sort of thing people most want stopped, above all else. What's more, according to the 'broken window' theory, it is precisely when this low-level disorder goes unchecked that more serious crimes become more common.

British police officers are not civil servants. They are sworn constables, whose oath obliges them to uphold the *Law* and entitles them to refuse a direct order if they believe it to be unlawful. I can see no barrier to a movement among police officers for the reinstatement of preventive beat policing, provided it is conducted within the rules of discipline. And when I see such a campaign, I shall commend and encourage it. But as long as it fails to begin, I shall be uninterested in airy claims that large numbers of officers really want to return to proper policing.

I am fascinated by Mr Sepulveda's statement that "I think lots of people, like Harriet Harman, support the idea of targeting drug users as criminal and leaving the dealers as the victims."

Really? When and where did Harriet Harman say this? Or anyone else?

By the way, I am shocked and rather appalled by the complete failure of anyone, at the time of writing, to comment on the terrible story of the 10-year-old boy who took his own life while on a dose of Ritalin and 'antidepressants'. What's wrong with you all? Posts on religion can attract hundreds of comments. The death penalty gets people going like anything. But this enormous scandal of the drugging of children, which needs only a little outrage to be checked, doesn't seem to move anyone but me and its terrifying, dogmatic advocates. Why is that?

Oh, and some twit suggests that GPs should be allowed to prescribe heroin. Wouldn't that be a breach of the bitt of the Hippocratic Oath about doing no harm? And presumably, apart from in England, and possibly there too under some rule, it would mean *free* prescriptions. Paid for by whom?

As it happens, through the Methadone programme, the British state supposedly 'prevents' crime by robbing the taxpayer through HMRC, spending his hard-earned money on stupefying drugs for criminal parasites, and giving them these drugs. Thus the crime is nationalised. It does not cease. It is done instead by the state. If I object to the spending of my money on this purpose, and refuse to pay taxes for it, I will go to prison. Unlike the heroin user, who openly breaks the law against possession of heroin, but is treated as a victim. I fail to see the moral difference between being mugged for my money by the state, so that some deadbeat can stupefy himself, and being mugged direct by the deadbeat.

The institutionalised wickedness which follows the acceptance of drug-taking among us is almost limitless.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Posted by: Peter Preston 16 April 2011 at 10:15 AM.

"Because the offender have transgressed not one line of civil protection from crime but two.
Anyone who commits murder challenges the authority of the law forbidding murder but anyone who murders an officer of the law crosses also another line of civil protection, for such an offender challenges not only the law but also seeks to neutralise the practical, day-to-day means which the law provides in order to prevent or deter any challenge to its authority.

The purpose of the law is to protect the weak against the excesses of the strong. If therefore the strong become so strong that they feel free to eliminate not only the weak but even the champions of the weak, the law is doubly undermined and anarchy threatens.".

I am not denigrating members of the police force but I expect us all to have the same protection under the law not a variable one depending upon which career path one has chosen. This was a sop, handed out to soften us up for complete abolition.

Anyway, the question is hypothetical, we are all equal now both the protected and the protectors and we can sleep easier in our beds because of it.

"However, the paradox remains, why should the life of PC Jones murdered in the execution of his duty be a more serious offense than the murder of Mr Jones going about his lawful business in Surbiton?"

Because the offender have transgressed not one line of civil protection from crime but two.
Anyone who commits murder challenges the authority of the law forbidding murder but anyone who murders an officer of the law crosses also another line of civil protection, for such an offender challenges not only the law but also seeks to neutralise the practical, day-to-day means which the law provides in order to prevent or deter any challenge to its authority.

The purpose of the law is to protect the weak against the excesses of the strong. If therefore the strong become so strong that they feel free to eliminate not only the weak but even the champions of the weak, the law is doubly undermined and anarchy threatens.

I wish I had never posted the excerpt from the Catholic Catechism because, as I think you are well aware, the point I was making was that it was pure flannel. Its yes, no, perhaps wording seems designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten. You are, of course, free to use any evidence or documentation you wish to support your case, but please don't quote my name with the implication that I agree with you, because I don't.

D. Bunker – Thanks for a courteous and thorough response. I don’t mind a little provocation by the way, debates sometimes need a little cheekiness and I’m not exactly averse to doing it myself on occasion.

I understand entirely why you’d think prison “more humane” than execution but I’m unsure we would ever come to complete agreement on that front. Having thought about it since your original reply, I think this ultimately boils down to the basic truth that all forms of punishment involve us (as society, individuals, whatever) doing something unpleasant to somebody else.
You suggest that execution drags us down to the level of the murderer. Does it follow then that imprisonment drags us down to the level of the kidnapper?

Incidentally, the “drags us down” argument is one I struggle with. Do we really descend to the level of a paedophilic child murderer if we execute him for his crimes after affording him presumption of innocence, jury trial, right of appeal and legal aid etc? You may think such acts equate, I cannot (or more likely, stubbornly refuse to). I agree that to punish anyone with unpleasant acts would, deontologically speaking, be “wrong”, but if we accept that as a principal we are left with a choice: Do we refuse to punish at all, or do we accept that we are doing something unpleasant and go through with it anyway, seeking to justify it with a degree of moral consequentialism? My answer is the latter and I am prepared to extend that to the point of execution. As I alluded to earlier, I am by no means a “hanger and flogger”, and ideally no executions would take place as no-one would commit crimes deserving of it. But I believe strongly that the ultimate punishment should exist and I would not shy away from using it – directly if necessary.

The possibility of executing innocents is often brought up and, as I said before, I would make a death sentence conditional on DNA evidence. One of my main points of contention with those who use this argument (and I appreciate this does not apply to you), is that it is often employed by supporters of liberal interventionist wars. The same people who call me a monster for supporting execution, callously and indifferently dismiss the genuinely needless and immoral deaths of innocents in their wars as collateral damage on the march to their liberal nightmare (sorry dream).

I’m glad we agree on the need to change the judicial system if we are to keep “lifers” inside. As you say, we would all probably agree a lot more if we debated with a bit more courtesy on this blog. Thanks again for demonstrating such a trait in your responses to me.

Michael Hyde - great reply. I have the feeling that if we (and by that I mean all on the blog) would make an effort to understand the other person's point of view, we would find a great deal of agreement.

And I must admit I sometimes provoke. When I wrote - kill (murder?) - for example. But I'm sometimes led to provoking - by people who provoke me.

OK. - To your reply. I think life imprisonment is more humane than capital punishment. I also think prison should not be a "cushy number". But if it is worse than death, then it is obviously just as effective a deterrent.

And if people generally thought that life impriisonment was worse than death, then they should - logically - be clamouring for that. But no, it's usually death for the villain that they want. That was my point.

The "advantage" of the death penalty is that is rules out a repeat of the offence. The matching disadvantage is that an innocent person might be executed.

But, importantly, I think capital punishment is also degrading. Like torture. I'm sure I could kill somebody if he, say, raped and killed my daughter. I would be out for vengeance. But I know that it would be wrong to do so.

(Cf - M. Williamson on the Catholic catechism.)

I agree with your penultimate sentence - entirely. We should try and change that situation.

As to "needless", I meant that there was no absolute necessity since there is an alternative - lifelong imprisonment.

Peter Preston - it also depends, I would venture, on whether laws are introduced by our rulers to reflect a morality which most of the populace would endorse, or at their own personal whims.
Fines for dustbins placed at slightly the wrong angle spring to mind.

My original point was that you did not have the evidence to justify your unqualified assertion about the downgrading of crimes. That evidence would be very hard to come by does not affect that point at all. The answer is to temper the assertion – as you subsequently did.

You ask “why get involved at all?” The answer is given in the very next sentence, which you quote. It’s the principle of the thing.

On the weight of evidence issue, we’ll have to disagree. Of course I don’t want to belittle your correspondents, but a) they are unlikely to be objective about the crime that affected them, and anyway b) much more importantly, even if their particular crime was downgraded, how representative of all current crimes was it, and how do we know how such crimes were treated in the past? (and at what point in the past? Etc.)

I didn’t mean to start a(nother) debate about dyslexia or drugs – they were just examples of where your view differs from many people’s. But I was interested your “view on self-stupefaction is based upon general Christian morality”. In what way? After all, as you acknowledge, other Christians might well not agree with you on this.

You say I use false logic and that, “they want death for the villain”. Well “they” very well might, but I cannot speak for “them”. I, however, would happily accept your suggestion of turning prisons into austere environments. The trouble is that this undermines your belief that it is better to live in prison than die in an execution chamber. If we refurnish prisons in the manner you suggest then this makes it less likely that people would wish to live in them for the rest of their natural lives – once more making such a sentence, in my view, cruel and unusual – morally more repugnent than the distasteful necessity of execution.

While I agree that tougher prisons (and longer sentences) are desirable, we disagree on the question of the (if you’ll forgive the pretension) ultimate sanction. I think this should be death, you prefer perpetual imprisonment. Can we quanitfy which is worse? We can really only answer these things from a personal perspective – I would prefer to be executed than spend 40, 50 years locked in a room. But that’s just me. As you say, “which is the lesser of two evils?”

You refer to the possibility of executing innocents, and you are right that this cannot be ignored. I would suggest though that modern DNA testing etc pretty much negates this possibility and such a sentence should be conditional on such evidence as DNA etc.

You, a little cheekily, refer to my “belief that it is compatible with Christ’s teachings to murder”. I’m sure we don’t need to argue the difference between murder and killing do we? I realise we come at this from different angles, but are you suggesting that I, as a Christian, should have no opinions whatsoever on crime and justice? No, Christ didn’t condem or condone execution. Neither did He condem or condone imprisonment against one’s will but presumably you wouldn’t ride my backside in indignation if I supported your notion of lifelong imprisonment (which, in some cases, I might)? Are both positions wrong, or neither?

Thanks by the way for attempting a response to my “bombing” question. To be honest, you hit the nail on the head when you say it would depend on the circumstances. This is the case with execution. I wouldn’t drag every fellon to the gallows but I believe in the principal of the death penalty as a deterrant and an ultimate sanction if the severity of the crime was overwhelming. Even if a criminal is given a “life means life” sentence today, a few years down the line, a clever lawyer or a new Home Secretary or a new European Ruling could see them free. The truth is, there’s very little we could do to actually keep someone inside until they die. That’s the flaw in your idea, and that is why I cannot agree that execution is necessarily, “needless”.

Re the comments on dyslexia. It seems that there are people who have more difficulty with reading and writing than others - in the same way that some people are better at sport than others and some can play a musical instrument better than others.

I recall reading an article a few years ago about former Scottish rugby international, Kenny Logan. His dyslexia was cured by a method of treatment called the Dore programme. I don't know the full details but the cure involved a number of exercises designed to stimulate the parts of the brain that process the written word.

If anybody would care to google search: 'Kenny Logan dyslexia', you'll find the article I'm referring to. If the article is true, dyslexia does exist and it can also be treated.

“Mr Aspinall now says: “The suspension you mention in 1947 was not the first suspension mentioned in public debate”. Who said it was?”
Good question. Who said it was? Not me and not you. Let me return to my first comments on this thread. I point out that some readers might have thought the two suspensions you *mention* might have been the only suspensions. Did I really need to point out I meant “the only suspensions *mentioned* in public debate by persons of note”?

Evidently I should have done and I will happily accept this. But you jumped, immediately, upon my use of Lord Gardiner’s words and assumed I used them because I thought the reduced use of the death penalty was the same as a suspension of the death penalty.

You write: “Mr Aspinall continues to baffle me by his interpretation of the word 'suspension'.”

Are you still baffled? You do not mention in your most recent comment if you are baffled or not, so I take it you are not.

You seem to have (almost) got my point. You write: “But the suspensions of 1948 and 1956 actually *took place*”

Who said any other suspensions *took place*? Again, not me and not you.

Who cares if they took place or did not take place as far as this point is concerned? I believe that, because you are familiar with Gardiner’s words, you missed the (admittedly less obvious) reason I used them and concentrated on the details of the changes to the law. That you were baffled shows this (and is, as I say, partly my fault.) If I had been clearer (see second paragraph of this comment) - and you had not jumped to a wrong conclusion, by the way - you would not have been baffled.

On the question of “homework,” I could read all your writings, watch all your appearances on television and so on, then bribe your butcher to tell me which sausages you prefer for breakfast – but my point would remain the same: Some persons might not know the death penalty was not simply “abolished in the 1960s” and they might not know that persons of note discussed suspending it before 1948 and 1957. That’s it. That is all my point was and is.

If you think my (few) contributions here are “breezy and self-confident” – or if you think they are unacceptable for any reason – then you need say only “go away” and I will do exactly that.

(The number of exchanges I have had here of any note is two. One with you on “An old lie resurfaces” and one with something called “tarquin” on the “Front line police officer” thread. The results? Me and you – I conceded. Me and “tarquin” – tarquin ran away. I think my attitude - and conduct generally - has been acceptable.)

At any rate, to sum up on this one: I could have been clearer. You jumped to a wrong conclusion.

"Peter Preston - perhaps in the first instance, if the proportion of the populus who continue to commit crime x is significant, the rulers should reflect upon whether x should remain a crime."

Or alternatively, sir, upon whether penalty y is sufficiently frightening to deter the proportion of the populace you refer to from committing crime x. Your approach certainly seems to be the one favoured by our current rulers and their recent predecessors. It all turns, I suppose, on whether our current justice system is thought to be working - and, of course, by whom, because different sections of the populace will see how it is working from different angles.

As a relative ignoramus with no Hebrew and only a smattering of Ancient Greek (but not Koine), confident is actually the last thing I am in an argument like this, although I suspect that our admittedly rapidly collapsing civilisation is still, on balance, a pleasanter place for most people to live (for the time being) than the slave-holding absolute monarchies of desert kings.

I'd be less confident than you that Christ himself (in Matthew 18:19) makes the distinction that you attribute to him; it could just be that the Koine of the New Testament comes out differently in English translation from the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

As for being remembered, I'd be amazed if anyone (other than my friends and family, and maybe not even them!) remembered anything I've ever said for more than about two minutes. Still, memorability is not an infallible guide to the quality of the thing remembered; I can remember the lyrics to the Ohio Express's "Yummy Yummy Yummy" perfectly, although I recognise them to be worthless, while I struggle to remember the odes of Keats or the sonnets of Shakespeare, Spenser and Milton (although I recognise the struggle to be worthwhile).

I, together with the Catholic catechism - we, jointly, seem to be arguing against believers such as Michael Hyde, Earl, Charles Dawne, Matthew O'Dowd, Peter Preston and our host.

And even against Jesus Christ himself, if our host is to be believed!

Me and the RCC, in one boat against the rest - unbelievable. But possible - as we see.

Thanks again for quoting from the catechism, Michael Williamson:-

"Today, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime by rendering one who has committed an offence incapable of doing harm ... cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent".

D.Bunker; my understanding, the original quote was "Thou shall not murder". Over time it has been altered, but the intent remains the same. It still refers to murder, not execution. It is abolitionists that alter it for their own ends.
Yes I could be an executioner. As I have said, I have experienced enough in my mere 25 years that I believe to be far worse than a humane execution. As I have said, I would get no pleasure from it and no decent human being would. I don't believe any sincere executioner does/has. Yes, I could take a body to a mortuary, as I already have done so on numerous occasions to the point that I have now lost count. And some of these people truly were helpless, unlike death row inmates who, through their own actions, have put themselves in that position. They are not helpless and prison does not remove the risk of them being a danger again. They can easily kill fellow inmates or prison officers and on some occasions, actually do so. You can't argue with capital punishment on that point as no executed murderer has killed again.
So yes D Bunker, I could face God and/or Jesus without shame. Capital punishment is compatible with Christian beliefs.

"Only behind 3. can I see some kind of reasoning, sir, though the reasoning I discern may be quite other than the reasoning of the lawmakers concerned. The police are - theoretically at least - the day-to-day champions of the law-abiding citizens. If the criminal classes begin to feel free to attack the lives and persons of the police, then it is "Heaven help the rest of us!"
Perhaps, if the well-being of our champions were taken more seriously by our rulers, the well-being of the rest of us might some time soon begin to be taken more seriously than it seems to be at present.".

I take your point sir and, I am sure, this was the reasoning of those who framed that act, realising that they had gone too far too soon on the road to total abolition. However, the paradox remains, why should the life of PC Jones murdered in the execution of his duty be a more serious offense than the murder of Mr Jones going about his lawful business in Surbiton?

Peter Hitchens - please believe me, I am not trying to make trouble. Just stating my honest opinion which is that I oppose the death penalty on the simple grounds that it involves killing a fellow human being without necessity. It violates human dignity. And it lowers us to the same level as the murderer himself.

I think that this standpoint is easy to understand.

Most civilized countries in the world have got rid of the death penalty for those reasons. So I am not alone with my opinion. I would venture to say that amongst intelligent people there are probably more opponents of the death penalty than proponents.

By the way, I checked in my German bible (M. Luther translation) Matthäus19/18 and it said - Jesus said "Du sollst nicht töten." Thou shalt not kill.

Then I turned to my Engish bible and - as you said - it read "Thou shalt do no murder."

So I think there is confusion as to the true translation of the original meaning, if indeed it can ever be established.

But to forbid murder doesn't rule out forbidding killing too. And I fear that theologians have watered down the original "kill" which would have required total pacifism. And replaced it with "murder". Which then leaves the way free for capital punishment and "just wars". Thus making Christianity "practicable".

You may understand me better if I explain that I was influenced in my younger days by the ideas of Victor Gollancz. He believed that Jesus revolutionized the OT morality of an eye for an eye (1 eye for 1 eye) by changing it to Love thine Enemy in the Sermon on the Mount. With all the consequences that this entailed.

I don't expect Christians to be able to live up to Christ's teachings all the time. But I do expect them to try - unless they wished to be called hypocrites. And I regard the death penalty as contrary to Christ's teachings.

Michael Hyde - thanks for an honest answer to the question. It is admirable that you would take personal responsbility for your belief that it is compatible with Christ's teachings to murder (sorry, to excecute) a helpless person - provided this person has been guilty of murder himself.

This is of course Old Testament morality - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I maintain that Christ revolutionized that morality in his sermon on the mount. You may disagree.

You ask me the difficult question - would I bomb (in war) if I knew innocent people might be killed. That would be a question for my conscience. Which is the lesser of two evils? The need to win a (justified and just) war or the need to protect innocent lives. I'm not trying to evade an answer. But it would depend on the circumstances.

If you are indirectly asking me if I'm a pacifist - the answer is: Regrettably, not. Total pacifism is impracticable. I rather think that Christ demanded it of Christians. But I'm not a Christian. Nevertheless I would not kill a helpless person needlessly, i.e. in an execution. For that reason I oppose the death penalty.

"I might add that both the 39 Articles of the Church of England (Article 37) , and the Roman Catholic Catechism, both conclude that the death penalty is justified in certain circumstances. Those who compile these documents do not do so without much study of scriptural texts, or without much thought

As somone who was subjected to the Catechism on an almost daily basis, I can assure you that the fifth commandment was, in those days at least, "Thou shalt not kill". The Catechism we used was a condensed version, a small blue book which, if my memory serves me correctly, cost 6d. I don't recall that much discussion on the death penaly but I know the de la Salle brothers supported it and, I think, often regretted the fact that it was not available to them as an aid in the disciplining of young boys.

I checked out the latest Catechism online and it says this:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."".

Michael Hyde - sorry, I posted this reply to you on the wrong thread. I'm on so many at the moment that I have to ask to be excused for this silly mistake. Here's what I replied:

Michael Hyde - an old argument, nevertheless false logic. If life imprisonment were a worse fate than the death penalty, why the outcry for the death penalty? People should be clamouring for life-long imprisonment instead. But no - they want death for the villain.

And anyway, it is foolish to say being killed is better than continuing to live - in prison. Although I will admit that it depends on conditions in the prison. But good people are always complaining that conditions in prison are too cushy.

I suggest the answer is to change them. Make life in prison frugal, no luxuries, but humane. Then life imprisonment would be punishment, protection of the public and a chance to repent as well.

That, l'm sure you will agree, is better than hanging somebody (who might even not be guilty - it's happened before, you know).

'Bert' contributes the following ( I have interspersed my responses with his comment, marking them **):

' I have no personal hostility to you (more the converse, I’d say). I’ve never met you, and while I disagree with you about most things, I’ve no objection to you having your say in your newspaper and via this blog.'

**That is very generous of him. Not to object, I mean.

Bert : 'This is an internet forum where people are able to comment freely, using pseudonyms if they wish, whenever and on whatever they like. In my case, I sometimes choose to comment when I think that your posts do not match up to the high standards of rigour that you set for yourself and contributors. The unqualified assertion about crime at the start of this particular post seemed to me to be an egregious example of this. (And your post of 8 April at 10.44 am, while I agreed with it, was irrelevant to the point that I had raised.)'

**I don't think it was irrelevant at all. Why was it irrelevant?

Bert :'Let me say that I could not do what you do: offer my view for public consumption, in a well-argued way, on a whole range of topics. If I did, I would quickly get shot to pieces. It is hugely to your credit that you often engage directly with posters. But you choose to colonise the high moral ground, and to adopt a sneering tone when it suits you with those who disagree with you. It’s your blog and that’s your prerogative. But you shouldn’t be surprised if, on occasion, some posters choose not to lie down before the weight of your prose.'

**No, I'm not. But I do get exasperated when this is done for reasons that appear to me to be unserious, namely a general oppositionism for the sake of it.
This is just mischief, which wastes my time and energy, and does not conform to the high-minded purpose (of enforcing rigour) stated above.

Bert' You’re right: I’m not that bothered by the classification of crimes.'

**Exactly. This isn't something he cares about. So why get involved at all? I do care about it, a lot.

' However, I am interested in the point of principle: if you can claim that crimes are being downgraded with little or no evidence, how should we treat some of your other claims – about the existence of dyslexia, or the “wickedness” of taking some drugs?'

**I like that 'little or no'. I have explained (irrelevantly?) the legal difficulties of stating in a public forum that a person has been convicted of manslaughter who ought to have been convicted of murder. I have stated that I have received (necessarily private, and I might add , deeply distressing in their details) letters from the relatives of victims of homicides , where the matter has been treated in this way. The writers of these letters have nothing to gain by untruth. No civil suit is affected, no claim for compensation contemplated. There is instead an unsatisfied thirst for justice and right. This I share.

Nor, it seems to me, is my analysis of the homicide figures unlikely to be true. On the contrary, it is highly likely given the nature of our criminal justice system and of our times.

This seems to me, under the circumstances, to be pretty compelling evidence. But 'Bert', dismisses it as 'little or no'. Well, it's certainly not 'no' evidence. But is it so 'little' that it can be dismissed as without worth? I would like him to tell my correspondents so, and see what he received in return. He dismisses it because he wishes to pick nits, on any possible occasion. I think a man who picks nits with the authenticity of the communications of the relatives of persons cruelly and unlawfully killed is more concerned with the nits than he is with the facts. In fact 'more concerned with the nits than with the facts' is a very good pithy summary of 'Bert' in general.

**As to this from 'Bert' :how should we treat some of your other claims – about the existence of dyslexia, or the “wickedness” of taking some drugs?'

I reply **These are different sorts of statements, as 'Bert' really ought to understand. On ''Dyslexia' I am required to prove nothing. It does not exist, and its proponents cannot show that it does, but will not accept the rather dispiriting conclusions for their activities which flow from this fact. I simply challenge the proponents of the existence of 'Dyslexia' to provide an objective diagnosis for its presence in the human body. Or a 'treatment' for it, which wouldn't also 'treat 'illiteracy. I also provide a sound and rather neat alternative explanation for the mass illiteracy of children in countries with bad schools, curiously missing in countries with good schools, and also curiously missing in the pasts of countries which once had good schools, and now have bad ones. Can he guess what it is?

My view on self-stupefaction is based upon general Christian morality. Those who don't have a moral foundation for their views, and believe that 'do what thou wilt' is the highest law (and there are lots of them) will necessarily not agree with me about this, or many other things. Those who share my Christianity won't necessarily agree with me about my interpretation of it on this matter. Generally, therefore, I argue from the practicality, that nobody can actively want significant numbers of young people to have their minds overthrown or their lives, and the lives of their families, otherwise ruined by the use of drugs. On that, we enter the realm of fact. And also the realm of obfuscation and misrepresentation which the pro-drug lobby ceaselessly use against me.

On the question of the Commandment ' Thou Shalt do no Murder', it is so rendered by Christ himself (Gospel according to St Matthew, Chapter 19, 18th verse, Authorised or 'King James' version).

This is why it is also so rendered in the service of The Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Now, as this dispute is supposed to be about what Christians believe the Commandment to mean, and Christians believe that Christ is God himself, or they would not be Christians, this rather closes the debate. If God himself in his most recent appearance among us (as believed by Christians) says 'Thou shalt do no murder', then that is what the Commandment is, superseding and overriding any previous version, or clarifying it if you prefer.

Atheists can believe what they like. I cannot see why they should care one way or the other. But they really need to be better-informed before trying to tell Christians how to interpret their own scriptures, don't you think?

I might add that Christ himself was subject to the death penalty, and his sayings were recorded when sentence was passed on him and while it was being carried out, and He did not take the opportunities offered to condemn it in principle. I agree that arguments from silence are not always reliable. But in this case, the silence is pretty eloquent. He did say much on other subjects during this event. What is more, one of the two thieves stated from his cross that they were justly punished for their crimes, and Christ did not contradict him.

I might add that both the 39 Articles of the Church of England (Article 37) , and the Roman Catholic Catechism, both conclude that the death penalty is justified in certain circumstances. Those who compile these documents do not do so without much study of scriptural texts, or without much thought.

Non-religious persons trying to make trouble will just have to accept that mainstream Christianity somehow manages to distinguish between lawless murder and lawful execution - even if Atheists appear to be unable to do so. Likewise it manages to observe that the destruction of a baby in the womb is the wrongful taking of life, which atheists also seem unable to perceive.

I am impressed that Mr Saunders is confident enough in himself and in our civilisation to say that the author of these words was an 'ignorant semi-savage'. I wonder how many of his words or deeds will be remembered by anyone 2,000 years hence, and what the people of that age will think of ours, especially the unpunished murders and the millions of massacred babies?

Are you fluent in the Hebrew of the Old Testament? Do you appreciate all the fine nuances of meaning and association when rendering one language into another? ("Kill" was good enough for the translators of the Authorised Version.) Or did you just read or hear somewhere (perhaps on an American Christian web site) that "murder" is the true meaning of the relevant Hebrew term in the Sixth Commandment, and took it completely on trust?

Not that I really give two hoots what ignorant semi-savages said thousands of years ago (except for historical and anthropological purposes).

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.